1:1,200 scale vs 1:2,400 scale, or 9,335 square feet vs 1350 square feet.
Both are absolutely incredible. I find the growth in size numbers difficult to really comprehend even though the scale difference is an "easy" * 2. I wish I wasn't so so bad at visualizing things.
In New York the commuter trains use etickets and if you smash your phone you can just log into your account on a friends phone, but they track how many times you do that any only allow 3 switches. They don't say 3 switches in a certain period, it just says you can only log in 3 times and then the account is locked. After that you have to call them -- and who knows what....
Thank you. You read my post for its substance and interacted with it in good faith. You are a true HNer and if you are ever in LV, I will gladly buy you a beer.
The most interesting thing I learned is that we let people who need Zoloft on the ISS. The FAA will disqualify you for that unless you jump through hoops.
They absolutely advertised it when it was released and every journalist knows about it.
Kashmir Patel went out of his way to bypass security protocols for onboarding his political hires (for the US’s premiere domestic intelligence service!). If he wanted to be secure, all he had to do was not get in the way of the FBI’s natural processes.
Also, this wouldn’t have happened if POTUS had hired someone with relevant FBI experience instead of a political hack.
You are high on the first peak of Dunning Krueger right now.
The Director of the FBI is an immensely powerful position, unlike the average secretory/assistant in some FBI field office. Even the FBI Special Agents are taught OpsSec in depth at FBI cadet school and it is reinforced at every additional relevant training.
The reason Patel wasn’t is because he’s unqualified to be in the department and was a political hire who almost certainly bypassed the normal security protocols when he was hired. The FBI has an entire detail, not unlike that of Secret Service, who both secures the physical person / transport of the Director, but who also maintains intelligence about threats and OpsSec, which should cover this specifically scenario. In other words, Patel didn’t need to know about this security precaution himself — he just needed to not stifle his team from protecting him.
What are you talking about? There's literally a Cyber Crimes[0] division of the FBI, and they run the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF). They probably know a thing or two about cyber security for high-ranked governmental officials.
dude at least you should have brought an internal recommendation memo targeted all fbi people, not "but fbi has this and this division..."
lets say your college have astrophysics and other big departments. Are you really expert on those areas? Can you expect all highly-regarded professors to know most things from other departments? Do all 'competent' art professors know about astrophysics?
I would, yes. Maybe a director in the Small Business Administration is lower on the target list of gov officials that would need to be concerned, but certainly anyone in the Departments of Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, State, Transportation, Treasury, and probably Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for sure.
> BECAUSE NSA IS part of the government ?
I don't know why multiple times in this comment section you allude to the NSA as being the only Federal agency tasked with any sort of cyber security responsibility, that is just plain wrong.
>you should have brought an internal recommendation memo targeted all fbi people
Yes, because I have access to any and all internal memos provided by the FBI to their employees. Internal memos are by their very nature are internal, so are generally not available for public consumption.
Also, your higher ed example is terrible, because as someone with a work history at a flagship state university's IT department, I can assure you that we provide all sorts of "memos", trainings, and tools to combat cybercrime, including special onboarding sessions to ensure new hires are protecting themselves and the university. We don't depend on the Art and Physics departments to make sure they keep their faculty 'in-line' following best practices in cyber security.
If only the Director of the FBI had access to some sort of investigative team, maybe more than one, maybe even enough that they use a collective term for it, something like, I don't know: bureau?
no but I've been interested in cryptography/anonimity stuff, so I see a lot of suggestions/advertisements related to those: signal, telegram, proton-mail, etc
Are you suggesting that he was targeted before he became the director of the FBI? That seems unlikely. Once he became an obvious target surely the FBI should have secured his past, present and future communications. But I have no idea what protocols there are for such things, I'm just going off common sense, a notoriously sketchy starting point in the crazy world of the current US administration.
This is just some claim by a person. I appreciate the context but as far as I can tell no such policy was on the books. The person making the claim has a clear motivated reason for claiming such and its all pretty vague.
It's okay, one claim is all that's needed for this adminstration and the current overton window in the US. The eternal leader himself changes his tune from sentence to sentence - the US has already won, the US needs help, the US was just testing the US has agreed to a ceasefire after discussions with Iran, even when Iran wasn't actually there.
What matters is that the claim was made, and now you have to pretend it is true.
Well how do you know if you overdosed? What else happens besides anxiety and paranoia? Some of the reaction may be genetic, but I think many people have a negative reaction to taking mass quantities of cannabis. I don't know if you want to take a poll here but it's pretty common...
The fact that someone had a negative reaction to an overdose has nothing to do with how (properly dosed) THC/CBD affects unhealthy (and healthy) people.
Many substances can be overdosed on, even though they may not be harmful - or may even be beneficial - in appropriate amounts.
reply